Many in our government, including President Bush, believe thatwe will "win" the "war on terrorism." Yet three years after 9/11,we are still erroneously evaluating the "war" on terror. Our goalis not to "win," because we are not engaged in a "war."
Merriam-Webster firstly defines war as a "state of usually openand declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations." Iwould augment that definition by reflecting on previous wars: theymust have a beginning, middle, and an end (i.e., the declaration ofwar, ensuing armed conflict, and a resolution.) Subsequently, weare not engaged in "war" as it is habitually experienced.
The United States and all democratic nations are involved in aglobal, persistent struggle against a widely dispersed non-stateentity. (We were just provoked to join the resistance later thanothers.) There will not be a seamless victory, nor a negotiatedpeace or surrender. Consequently, the use of war-as-a-metaphorshould be discontinued, particularly due to its implications andconsequences.
Dr. M. Brewster Smith of the University of Santa Cruz assertsthat in combating terrorism the government enacts measures that are"unlikely to meet with full success" and therefore "open tointerpretation." We haven't been given specific criteria todetermine if we are, in fact, making progress. We must recognizethat when the administration is saying, "We are winning," it is asuperficial statement. We must define criteria for progress.
Criteria could include the number of terrorist incidents (up 36%since 2001) and resultant deaths per annum (58% ofterrorism-related deaths since 9/11 have occurred in 2004), orattitudes towards U.S. policies by European and Islamic countries(in August 2004, 31 out of 35 countries said Bush has made themfeel worse about America). Other possible factors to consider arethe capture of high-level, iconic terrorist leaders (where's BinLaden?), or the creation of terrorist havens in war-torn lands(Iraq). Overall, results haven't been encouraging.
Dr. Thomas Pettigrew, of the University of Santa Cruz, assertsthat in using the concept of "war" the President generates acontinual state of collective threat and fear to the disadvantageof every American. As Edmund Burke sharply discerned centuries ago,"No passion so effectively robs the mind of all its powers ofacting and reasoning as fear."
In this collective panic, we let our government detain over1,200 Muslims, keep their hearings secret and names withheld.Precariously curtailing civil liberties, the Patriot Act, anovernight revision of surveillance laws, was enacted. Incidents ofhate crimes based on anti-Islamic prejudice rose 400%. And by suingthe University of North Carolina to prevent incoming undergraduatesbeing assigned a book about the Koran, we have even infringed onacademic freedom. As Pettigrew observes, collective threat elicitsmore authoritarian behavior in the name of "patriotism," andnaysayers are branded otherwise.
So what can we do? As the President prudently averred on August30 (and subsequently rescinded), we cannot win the war on terror --we can only facilitate conditions in which psychological supportfor terrorism has abated and the endemic populace utterly rejectsterror as a tool. It's not winning -- it's progress in anevolutionary struggle that will persist over many Presidentialterms.
In my next column, I will discuss initiatives to engender muchneeded progress in this global struggle.
Write to Russ at
rjwpsy@yahoo.com
Read More
Three Air Jam teams take home the win
October 12, 2012Nineteen teams shimmied, shook and flipped for a sold out John R. Emens Auditorium on Thursday night during the 25th annual Air Jam.
Bill Clinton Speaks at North Central High School
October 12, 2012Former President's Speech Could Have Effect on State Senate Race
